Linus vs. John

[PacMan]

3DOP,

I need to clarify a misstatement of mine which has clearly led you down the wrong path. Peter’s role is not attenuated, nor is his participation in Rome. I believe, rather, that the history is attenuated as to him organizing/founding the Roman church. I am a tremendous fan of Peter…so anything I’ve said to bring that into doubt, please disregard. I’m simply challenging the history as to Rome’s organization—which admittedly, isn’t settled one way or the other.

Per your citation of Romans 15:19-25, I certainly see your point; but I think that to conclude that he ‘was kept away until now,’ thus suggests that Paul had never before been would be a stretch. I wouldn’t bet my life on it. More telling, I believe, is the fact that the first Bishop of Rome was ordained by Paul (we’ll get to the credibility in a moment). If Peter organized the church there, why would he leave without ordaining a Bishop? Clearly he wouldn’t. The only possibility is that Peter and Paul established Rome ‘together,’ and Paul was given the honor of ordaining that Bishop. But that doesn’t make sense, particularly where Peter was the senior Apostle.

You also suggest that Rome was the “most admired Church.” The text doesn’t say that. Clearly compliments were liberally reaped toward Rome. I think the mere fact that it was the ‘hearth of the devil,’ so-to-speak, spoke volumes of the Roman Christians. That’s another reason why I think Paul was the first one there. Paul was zealous—more so than Peter. Paul would have gone to the ‘heart-of-the-devil’ as soon as possible. He’d have beaten the other apostles to the punch. He would have taken the challenge. Clearly, I base that proposition on the personality that we can imply, and no record.

It is clear then that it was only after St. Paul's long labors to establish the churches from Jerusalem round about as far as Illyricum", that God granted St. Paul's prayer that he could come to the church most reknowned for its faith and obedience to Christ in the world.

That is simply untrue. That’s not what the text says. He desired to see them, and was ‘proud’ of the faithfulness. It sounds more like an endeared father, rather than a marveling stranger. He wanted to get back to them, and is seemingly apologetic that he couldn’t have done so sooner.

But to your point that if Peter's keys should be thought to be associated with any city, it would be Antioch does not seem proper.

NOOO… I do not believe that. I simply do not believe that the work in Rome was so significant to dwarf his others works…even assuming Peter did organize Rome. He did a great work throughout the world, and Rome was not uniquely significant to suggest that the keys remained there. I was using Antioch as a balance in the logic…not a proposition.

This was in part why I suggested that St. Peter's better days were ahead of him and that his fruits in Antioch were not worthy as those in Rome were.

According to Paul, it was Peter the screwed up, not the Christians in Antioch. I don’t see how that hurts his fruits any. We all make mistakes.

You are free to disagree with the tradition, but it is most compatible with the biblical record, that St. Peter precedes Paul to Rome, and after many years they reconcile, and both of them labor together fruitfully in their final years before being martyred, as tradition has it, on the same day.

Again, I think the tradition is fairly convenient. Given that presumption, why did Peter not ordain Linus but leave that to Paul when he came…according to you, much later?

Part of your objection above to the keys residing with the Bishop of Rome is based on an untenable supposition, probably taken from the spurious Apostolic Constitutions Bk. 7, sec. 4, ch. 47 where we read, "Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter." You wrote, "it was Paul that organized the church in Rome. The records add Peter, but there is no indication that he was their when Paul organized the church and ordained Linus." I haven't found any scholarship that believes that Peter wrote those words from the Constitutions, and furthermore that whoever did was writing around the 4th or even 5th Century.

1) You have again, misused the term untenable. I have a citation, and thus evidence. That makes it quintessentially opposite to “untenable.”

2) This is the only germane document that states who ordained Linus. There is no other, except those that make assumptions in sweeping and conclusory manners.

3) The presumption is Peter wrote it. More importantly is the lack of scholarship that he didn’t write it.

4) Even if he didn’t, it’s part of this so-called ‘tradition’ and one of the Catholic documents.

5) Even if he didn’t, and considering there is no such information to contradict it, the statement stands unchallenged as a germane discussion of the chain of ordination. Given the Catholic claim, and that it is a Catholic document, it seems that such a stance is at least quasi-reliable because it contra-helpful…as this discussion has illuminated.

This is just one little plank in your objection to the keys residing with the bishop of Rome. It doesn't conclude the case by any means. But we have to go one little piece at a time.

I agree, and I appreciate your approach.

Summary:

#1) Tradition places Peter as the organizer of Rome

• Rebuttal: Agreed, however tradition has a bit of a conflict of interest where unqualified.

#2) Why didn’t Peter in his organization ordain a bishop but left it much later to Paul?

• Rebuttal: The Constitutions are not wholly reliable. We don’t know who really wrote them, and where they got their information.

• Rebuttal, rebuttal: It’s the only germane document on topic, is not contradicted, and is more reliable as a Catholic document where it is counter (or not supporting) the claim of Peter’s organizational involvement.

#3) Rome was the greatest of churches.

• Rebuttal: The text says it’s great, but not the greatest.

#4) Antioch cannot be considered greater than Rome.

• Rebuttal: Agreed.

#5) The greatness of the church is irrelevant (or not significantly relevant) anyway to the passing of keys, for keys are given to man to provide over the church, not to the church to preside over itself.

• Rebuttal: [i think this is where we are at.]

Cheers,

PacMan

[David Waltz]

Arrrghâ?¦I find myself late to yet another â??partyâ?? (i.e. interesting thread).

IMHO, before one can legitimately discuss the See of Peter, one must first define and establish apostolic succession. I have written on this at length before, but while I try to find where I put my reflections on my hard drive, I shall leave you with something an Anglican scholar wrote:

The episcopate the divinely ordained ministerial instrument for securing to the Church of God its continuous and organic unity, not as a club of like-minded worshippers or aspirants to holiness, but as a God-given city of salvationâ?¦

Let me attempt to put what I must describe as the â??Catholicâ?? view succinctly yet constructively. Our Lord endowed His Church with two great gifts: the means of grace (the word and the sacraments), and the ministry of grace (the apostles and their fellow-labourers). Both classes of institutions were, in a greater or less degree, in a state of fluidity; many years were to elapse, for example, before the â??word of Godâ?? became crystallized into an accepted canon of Holy Scripture. Much earlier, the ministry of grace had already assumed a recognizable and authoritative form. We speak of it normally as a threefold ministry, and that is accurate enough; but for the purpose of understanding episcopacy we must think of it as twofold rather than threefold. There was an Essential and a Dependent Ministry; and although it was not long before the name â??bishopâ?? was normally reserved to members of the Essential Ministry alone, it is misleading to suppose that everyone who is described as an episcopos or as exercising episcopē in primitive days was a member of the Essential Ministry, whilst everyone who was called by some other title ranked among the Dependent alone.

There may have been periods and places in which the Essential Ministry was the only ministry. However this may be, the primary everyday duty of the ministry was the due administration of the word and sacraments; and (after allowing for occasional local variations in the immediate subapostolic period) it is clear that, in so far as the Dependent Ministry had a share in these functions, it did so by devolution, or on commission, from the Essential Ministry alone. There is ample evidence for thisâ?¦

Where we speak of an Essential Ministry, however, the earliest Christians thought of one which was â??apostolic.â?? The earliest â??ordersâ?? of which we have knowledge from the New Testament are those of the apostles and of the elders. The words â??deaconâ?? and â??bishop,â?? when they occur, like the word â??servantâ?? and the noun of personality which might have been coined from â??liturgyâ?? had it been so desired, refers to functions, not orders. A â??bishopâ?? is one who has, in any sense, oversight (episcopē) over others; a deacon, servant, or â??liturgistâ?? is one who does service, either to God or to man or to both. So an apostle can have a â??deaconhsipâ?? or â??liturgy,â?? whilst an elder can be a â??bishop.â?? It is purely a question of the varying use of words.

But the apostle, as later chapters will show, is the plenipotentiary (the shaliach) of his Masterâ??the accredited representative of the ascended Lord. He is therefore the guardian of the faith, the source of teaching, the minister of the sacraments. He has more than local significance. The elder, on the other handâ??an official derived from the Jewish synagogue organizationâ??is the executive or administrative pivot of the local Church. That the apostles appointed elders is unquestionable; that they also appointed â??apostolic menâ?? with authority over the local elders is clear from the pastoral epistlesâ?¦

Here, then, in the New Testament evidence, is the distinction between the Essential and the Dependent Ministry clearly marked. It is blurred at two points only. It may well be supposed that in many local Churches, between the visits of that member of the Apostolic College whose commission gave him oversight there, new elders were appointed by the Church or by the existing elders to fill in gaps in the administrative organization; though it is an interesting and perhaps important fact that no instance of such a proceeding seems to survive in the not inconsiderable extant evidence. It must also be the case for a time, in such local Churches, the sacraments were administered by elders. Between the New Testament period and the end of the second century three developments cleared up these uncertainties. In the first place, each local Church came under the supervision of a resident â??successor to the apostles,â?? himself ordained to the position by those who already held the same rank; for these resident overseers the word â??bishopâ?? (episcopos) was in due course stereotyped as a title of order and not merely a description of function, and they alone were spoken of as exercising episcopē. Next, the apostolic bishop, now stationary, reassumed by a natural process that administration of the sacraments which had been the prerogative entrusted to the apostles, but had been to some degree dispersed among the elders for want of a sufficiency of apostles and apostolic men. In the third place, the view that no elder could be created apart from episcopal ordination became universal. Of the course of these developments the evidence is at best fragmentary; but that they took place is certain. Nor can it be said that any of them transgresses any principle of Christian community. (â??The Apostolic Ministryâ?, in The Apostolic Ministry, pp. 8-10.)

Grace and peace,

David

[David Waltz]

Found one of my older responses...

THREE-FOLD MINSITRY

I think one of the largest obstacles/difficulties when discussing the nature of the first and second century Church is terminologyâ??fact is, the terms used for Church officers were not fixed, and had more than one applicationâ??apostle, bishop, elder and deacon were quite interchangeable in the NT and early post-apostolic writings. For instance, anyone of the â??Twelveâ? disciples that were appointed by Jesus Christ could be called an â??apostleâ?, â??bishopâ?, â??elderâ? and â??deaconâ?. Context and function become extremely important in determining the type of office that is being described. To assist our discussion, I shall present my view of the hierarchical offices in 3 distinct periods: mid-30â??s â?? 66/67 AD; 66/67 â?? 100 AD; post 100 AD; and I shall argue that all 3 periods had three distinctive offices.

In the first period we have a three-fold governmental ministry of apostles (and deutero/lieutenant-apostlesâ??i.e. Apollos, Timothy, Titus, etc), bishops/elders, and deacons. The apostles and their close lieutenants (sometimes also called apostles) had the primary task of establishing churches throughout the Roman Empire. One of their important functions was the appointing of local officers called bishops/elders. Each major city had many bishops/elders, and each â??houseâ? church probably had at least one bishop/elder. The bishop/elders were the â??leadersâ? of the â??houseâ? churches, and like the apostles, had deacons to assist themâ??the deacons being the 3rd, and lowest office in the Church.

[sometimes, the apostles and lieutenant apostles took up semi-permanent residence in one of the major cities that was in the region they were ministering in. (It is my belief that this practice gave rise to the emergence of the â??monarchial episcopateâ?.)]

Now, moving into the second period, two important events must be noted: first the surrounding of Jerusalem by Roman troops in 66/67 AD (followed by itâ??s destruction in 70 AD); and second, the loss of the majority of apostles (eyewitnesses to Christâ??s resurrection). It is my belief that either just prior to the beginning of this period, or shortly after its beginning, the apostles began to appoint one individual to take the lead in each major city that had no apostle or lieutenant apostle in residence. I would point to the letters of Ignatius which attest to practice of the monarchial episcopate in the early second century as support for my thesis.

A perpetuation of ordination apart from the apostles is in place during this second period, as attested by Clement of Rome. So, as the top level of the threefold ministry is disappearing in this second period, it is being replaced in a sense by what us Catholics term â??apostolic successionâ?. Thus as we enter in the 3rd period, the period with no apostles, we still have intact a three-fold ministry; and by the middle of second century the title of bishop was being used exclusively for the highest level, elder/presbyter for the middle, and deacon for the lowest.

The â??difficultiesâ?? that seem apparent for the most part disappear (IMHO) if one sees the two apostolic periods as ones of development; development which had in mind the subsequent period of no apostles. I suppose the remaining question for Tom would be whether or not this development was sanctioned by God.

(David Waltz â?? 02/27/07 - http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...22131&st=20 .)

Grace and peace,

David

[AtticusFinch]

To second-guess God is always a bad idea. Why did God choose Linus? Who knows? How often have we wondered why God chose one person and not another. Does that make the succession not true? No.

As to John still being around.....so what? I was told as a Mormon that John STILL walks the earth, as do the 3 Nephites. Why did God choose Joseph if john was still around? Is Joseph greater than John or the 3 Nephites?

As a mormon, I did not always agree with who was called as a Bishop....but it did not matter, God called them.

Frankly, I was not always thrilled with who was selected as Apostles. Not that I had anything against the people chosen (I did not know them) but it appeared to be a very elitest group of people......either a long history with the Church and/or wealthy. I always beleived that God did not choose based on money or bloodlines......

God chose David.....the least in Samuel's eyes......

Anyway, God's ways are not our ways.....

[3DOP]

PacMan

3DOP,

I need to clarify a misstatement of mine which has clearly led you down the wrong path. Peterâ??s role is not attenuated, nor is his participation in Rome. I believe, rather, that the history is attenuated as to him organizing/founding the Roman church. I am a tremendous fan of Peter so anything I've said to bring that into doubt, please disregard. I'm simply challenging the history as to Rome's organization which admittedly, isn't settled one way or the other.

Per your citation of Romans 15:19-25, I certainly see your point; but I think that to conclude that he was kept away until now, thus suggests that Paul had never before been would be a stretch. I wouldn't bet my life on it. More telling, I believe, is the fact that the first Bishop of Rome was ordained by Paul (we'll get to the credibility in a moment). If Peter organized the church there, why would he leave without ordaining a Bishop? Clearly he wouldn't. The only possibility is that Peter and Paul established Rome together, and Paul was given the honor of ordaining that Bishop. But that doesn't make sense, particularly where Peter was the senior Apostle.

3DOP

Hi again Pacman.

I find the biblical evidence pointing to St. Paul's having not yet been to Rome at the time of his letter to the Romans, more compelling than your 4th or 5th Century document called Apostolic Constitutions, allegedly written by St. Peter, as your only record saying that St. Paul ordained Linus. Apparently I have misused the word "tenable" in my previous response. You said this was because you have evidence. I am ashamed if I have betrayed my weak vocabulary. While I don't find your evidence to be in the least compelling; however "tenable" it is, I concede that I do not know. I will cease using the word until I get a better understanding of it.

St. Paul tells us in Romans 15:22 that there was "a cause" for why he had never been to Rome at all according to me, or why he hadn't been to Rome for a long time according to you.

For which cause also I was hindered very much from coming to you, and have been kept away till now

---v.22

The cause to which he refers is given in the preceding verses:

By the virtue of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Ghost, so that from Jerusalem round about as far as unto Illyricum, I have replenished the gospel of Christ. And I have so preached this gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation.

---v. 19, 20

I think both of us will have to agree in understanding that the cause for his not having been to Rome either at all, or for a long time is given in v. 20. You have contended that, "It was Paul that organized the church in Rome. The records add Peter, but there's no indication that he was their when Paul organized the church and ordained Linus." If this is true, what are the Romans to think when Paul gives as his reason for not coming to them sooner, that he wasn't called to "build upon another man's foundation"? If Paul organized the church at Rome as you say, it seems difficult to understand how his coming would violate his reason of not wanting to "building upon another man's foundation".

He made repeat visits to other churches that he had previously organized as he was building upon his own foundation. We can extend our study into the book of Acts if necessary to show how unlikely it is that the Apostolic Constitutions supports your theory that Paul organized the Roman church.

3DOP

[3DOP]

Mistaken repeat